Re: PROPOSAL: UISG Compliancy Level Standardization, Revision 3

["Dan \"Effugas\" Kaminsky" <effugas best com>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Bowie Poag <bjp@primenet.com>
To: gnome-gui-list@gnome.org <gnome-gui-list@gnome.org>
Date: Monday, August 10, 1998 5:48 PM
Subject: PROPOSAL: UISG Compliancy Level Standardization, Revision 3


>
>Ok, folks.. Comes down to this. Everything else worthy of debate has been
>decided. I've spoken with Tom privately in email about this one, and i'm
>prepared to conceed my stand on this issue, and fall in line with the
>popular concensus.......despite the fact that I still dont think its such
>a good idea.. ;)
>
> o The UISG now proposes that the Compliancy Levels be listed from 1-5,
>   with HIGHEST esteem given to Level 5, and lowest given to Level 1.
>   In plain english, crappy apps which meet few requirements are listed
>   as Level 1 Compliant, fantastic apps with all the trimmings, bells and
>   whistles are said to be "Level 5 Compliant"


Apologies, I have 260 unread messages and there's a very good chance
someone/all of your responded to this before, but I must repeat my objection
to Level 5, the experimental level, being held in the same category as
Levels 1 through 4.  I think our highest number should be our best case
scenario.  Level 5 is NOT necessarily a best case scenario as is--lets say
some really strange under development feature pops out.  To retain GC5
compliance, an application must put this feature in whether it deserves it
or not.  That's not right--features that might not be that good would be
shoved in!

Think about how much better the Experimental modifer is.  Experimental Gnome
Compliance level 3(EGC3) tells app writers that the next revision of the
style guide may include this feature in a specific category of necessity, so
they know what to expect and might even do something early enough.  Features
that are so in development so as to not be knowable how necessary they'll
end up would sit in a Development category.

Doesn't that make sense?  Giving app writers some time to implement the
experimental, to see if it works in the general population of apps, before
they're forced to do it if they want to stay compliant?

Oh, by the way, whatever happened to the versioning?  You know, GC3v1.1 for
example.

> o Shorthand for the levels: "G5 Compliant" or "GC5 Compliant"?
>   LEts hear some opinions on either one - Its up for grabs. The
>   consensus appears to be evenly divided between both. I
>   personally prefer "GC" to "G".


The G# namespace has been taken by another computer vendor--Apple.  G3, G4,
etc.

QUICK BREAKDOWN OF EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN TAKEN:

C#:  C1, C2 by the Orange Book of Security, no GNOME reference
L#:  Generic, no GNOME reference
G#:  Apple
GL#:  SGI OpenGL
CL#:  No GNOME reference, "Commmand Line Interface" we don't want to
associate with this, and believe me Microsoft would do something like that
GCL#:  Long, sounds like GPL which would heavily confuse users, four
characters harder to remember than 3
GC#:  Not taken.

>Agree or Disagree?


Apologies if all this was already hit upon, please send me your replies if I
missed them.  Yes, I KNOW I've said about half of this before ;-)

>
>+--------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Bowie J. Poag  bjp@primenet.com  http://www.nubox.dyn.ml.org |
>| Sand and grit in a concrete base.                            |
>+--------------------------------------------------------------+
>
>
>
>--
>         To unsubscribe: mail gnome-gui-list-request@gnome.org with
>                       "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
>
>